that nazis were winning the english destroying radars, airports and important military targets

suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover

if this hasnt happened the english might have lost the war

then couldnt the english have made up the first
bombing city incident in order for the raf to recover by stopping being the main target?

raaaid

04-27-2007, 03:52 AM

that nazis were winning the english destroying radars, airports and important military targets

suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover

if this hasnt happened the english might have lost the war

then couldnt the english have made up the first
bombing city incident in order for the raf to recover by stopping being the main target?

Deadmeat313

04-27-2007, 04:03 AM

If the English had cheated, the server would have flagged it and they would have been kicked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

And the Village was London. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

T.

mrsiCkstar

04-27-2007, 04:03 AM

*looks far off into the sky*

oh look, there goes the lid off of the can of worms.

Capt.LoneRanger

04-27-2007, 04:07 AM

No, this is not funny. The British really cheated - just look at the Spitties in IL2. I also saw a picture of a Spit-Cockpit with a button labeled "Screenshot".

Really!

Whirlin_merlin

04-27-2007, 04:08 AM

My god he's right, now I feel so ashamed. Poor hard done by Nazis.

Raaaid stick to 'free energy' it's safer.

John_Pimlott

04-27-2007, 04:08 AM

Just as I thought we were getting away with it..
Rumbled!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

GreyKnight1971

04-27-2007, 04:15 AM

This is another example of what happens when you don't read the mission brief fully.

The blue team started Vulturing the red bases and then all hell broke loose and it became tit-for-tat.

Deadmeat313

04-27-2007, 04:18 AM

To be slightly more serious - I do kind of agree.

If my memory serves, a London suburb was bombed once by accident despite the Luftwaffe's orders not to hit civilian targets. Then the RAF started retaliatory raids against Berlin - which Hitler apparently tried to stop by diplomatic channels, before eventually ordering the Luftwaffe to re-focus their attacks towards London.

By "diplomatic channels" I mean that he gave radio addresses where he denounced the attacks as criminal, and tried to get the Allies to cease making war against civilians.

It has been argued by some leading historians (&lt;- note that brilliant leading "Weasel Words" sentence), that if the Luftwaffe had maintained their original focus they would have crippled the RAF in short order.

Apologies for the vague-ness. I'm at work and away from my books. As a reference to Hitler's radio addresses I can only remember Basil Liddell-Hart's 'The History of the Second World War'.

It wasn't cheating though. I'm not sure if the British were TRYING to goad the Germans into shifting their attack focus. More likely it was just a military reaction to a military attack that had unforseen effects.

T.

Lucius_Esox

04-27-2007, 04:39 AM

Lol,,, cheating and warfare!!!!

Ermm,, scratching head.. Aren't some getting the wrong idea about war here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

raaaid

04-27-2007, 04:40 AM

hell if i was in war vs hitler and he was winning id cheat to beat him

but the point isnt weather it was right or not but if it actually was intended to trick hitler

If my memory serves, a London suburb was bombed once by accident despite the Luftwaffe's orders not to hit civilian targets. .

T. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This had not been the policy on 'other' fronts mind.

Unfortunatly I suspect it was enevitable that civilians were going to get targetted eventually as all participants had developed the means to do so. In away who started it becomes irrelevent. Just another sad reminder that war is a bad thing best, avoided when possible.

As to wether it was a ruse to divert the LW away from military targets, giving them 'breathing space' possible but the term cheating is not really applicable.

raaaid

04-27-2007, 04:55 AM

i know the term cheating is not adequate but is the best my english gets

Lucius_Esox

04-27-2007, 05:07 AM

Ok raaaid I hear what you are saying about the language thing.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm English and when I read books about some of the "stunts" come up with by people from this little island in WW2 it amazes me.. I think the English are masters at subtefuge!!

Maybe the sense of fair play that is meant to be so typically English leads one to believe they play fair.

That in itself is probably a great piece of subtefuge lol..

Putting "secret" invasion plans on dead bodies, creating a whole Ghost army group commanded by Patton in SE England before D day, sending bombers out immitate an invasion fleet going to the Pas de Calais when the real one was in Normandy. List is endless..

think deadmeat has it pretty much spot on, although i kinda think there was an element of "london can take it, the RAF can't" so in order to provoke a shift in focus it wasn't just retaliation for some lost german bombers jettisoning over the east end, but a tactical decision. and of course, hitler predicatably enough shifted to bombing london to break morale... so the focus was taken off trashing the RAF and airbases, which were close to breaking point, and shifted to bombing civvies to get them to revolt against the government and seek peace.

XyZspineZyX

04-27-2007, 05:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
that nazis were winning the english destroying radars, airports and important military targets

suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover

if this hasnt happened the english might have lost the war

then couldnt the english have made up the first
bombing city incident in order for the raf to recover by stopping being the main target? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Raaaid

If you look up the incident, you'll find that Germany had a little something to say about the whole event

If it was a "fake", then Germany and England got together and agreed to do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Questions like this can be answered with a little bit of historical research

stanford-ukded

04-27-2007, 05:23 AM

If you are to believe Stephen Bungay, the RAF could have indeed carried on taking the pounding they were for a significant period of time. Why? Because the Germans were pounding the wrong airfields most of the time.

When airfields were out of action (with the exception of Manston and other coastal fields) they were generally taken out by 'lucky' hits to communication and power lines. Even then, none were out of action for more than two days.
Even if you don't agree with what is being said, The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay is a fantastic read. In fact, it's a must read.

Raid - I don't know exactly how good your English is, but I strongly suggest you try to get your hands on a copy of the book.

FluffyDucks2

04-27-2007, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
that nazis were winning the english destroying radars, airports and important military targets

suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover

if this hasnt happened the english might have lost the war

then couldnt the english have made up the first
bombing city incident in order for the raf to recover by stopping being the main target? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The English may have cheated....but it was the BRITISH and their Commonwealth allies that took on the Nazis. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

FluffyDucks2

04-27-2007, 05:31 AM

OMIGAWD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I just replied to one of Raaids posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

stanford-ukded

04-27-2007, 05:40 AM

In raaaids defence, his threads usually generate intelligent discussion. He seems to dissapear after one or two posts in each, though.

JG52Karaya-X

04-27-2007, 05:46 AM

Everyone knows the British haxxored... 'nuff said

raaaid

04-27-2007, 06:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
In raaaids defence, his threads usually generate intelligent discussion. He seems to dissapear after one or two posts in each, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i prefer listening to speak

ImpStarDuece

04-27-2007, 06:09 AM

The British didn't "cheat" and the Germans weren't really "winning" either before the attacks on London. It was a failure of intellignce work that lead to the German bombing of London, more than anything else.

It was poor intelligence and Georing himself that saved the Chain Home radar system from further destruction. He concluded on 15-August that "It is doubtful whether there is any point in continuing attacks on radar sites, in view of the fact that not one of those attacked has been put out of action".

Total Fighter Command available strength (ie fighters ready to fly and fight) steadily increased until mid August. Fighter Command never had less than 700 aircraft ready for operations from the beginning of August onwards.

German fighter bombers (Me 110s) had actually attacked factory complexes in the Greater London are on August the 15th, causing 80 casualties.

On the night of August 24/25 German level bombers did accidently attack London. The RAF then launch a serise of retaliatory raids against Berlin on the 25th,26th and 8th.

However, the LuftWaffe didn't respond by bombing London until September 07, about two weeks after the RAF retaliation raids. Even then, there had been a significant proportion of the Luftwaffe that wanted to bomb it anyway, hoping for a repeat of the effects at Warsaw and Rotterdam.

Funnily enough, the RAF rate of attrition relative to the LuftWaffe INCREASED for the first few attacks against London, before FC could find its feet against the new tactic. To some extent, London was the biggest bait the Luftwaffe had to offer.

BSS_Goat

04-27-2007, 06:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John_Pimlott:
Just as I thought we were getting away with it..
Rumbled!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

Roblex

04-27-2007, 07:13 AM

Hugh Dowding himself is quoted as saying that if the Luftwaffe had continued bombing RAF airfields for another 7 - 10 days then the RAF would have been out of action.

Looking at military history it becomes obvious just how important information is to the outcome of wars. If the Luftwaffe had realised how effective their bombing was then they would have won the war before the end of 1940 but they assumed it was not working.
Similarly there was also a 2 week period in 1940 when England had no radar stations between the Isle of Wight and Ramsgate but the Luftwaffe did not know. They assumed that bombing those little wooden sheds at the base of the radar towers was pointless because 'obviously' the radar operators and the important equipment must be in a nearby underground bombproof bunker; so they stopped http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the US side, what would have happened if a single squadron leader off Midway had not decided to extend his search pattern 5 minutes longer than ordered to and spotted the last traces of a ships wake that led him to the Japanese fleet?

Pirschjaeger

04-27-2007, 07:25 AM

Without Goering the Allies wouldn't have stood a chance.

BTW, cheating only begins after the treaties are signed, then it's history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

general_kalle

04-27-2007, 07:47 AM

want a proof that the english cheated.
look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjbYNgIi5ss). please see it all trough

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
that nazis were winning the english destroying radars, airports and important military targets

suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover

if this hasnt happened the english might have lost the war

then couldnt the english have made up the first
bombing city incident in order for the raf to recover by stopping being the main target? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Stick to..

WHAT IF MONKEYS WITH RED HATS AND RAY GUNS FLEW OUT OF MY BUT AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?

Kinds of topics.. it suits you better.

WB_Outlaw

04-27-2007, 07:57 AM

England was never in danger of being invaded and the RAF was never in danger of being destroyed. At worst, the RAF fighters would have been forced to pull back beyond the range of the 109s, which wasn't much beyond the coast. Beyond that range, any bombers attempting to attack the bases would have suffered even more than they did when escorted, which was pretty high. IIRC, the Luftwaffe had not even replaced all of the losses from earlier campaigns so they were stretched to the limit at the beginning of the BoB.

The whole discussion is really moot anyway b/c the Kreigsmarine stated over and over that they were incapable of landing an invasion force due to the distance, the sea conditions, and the lack of proper landing craft. The barges they were planning on using were a joke. All the Royal Navy would have had to do was charge the invasion force lobbing shells throughout. Even near misses would have been disastrous for the landing craft. Add to that every single aircraft the RAF had running amok and it's pretty obvious that there was just no chance of there ever being an invasion. Even if it would have resulted in massive RN and RAF casualties to stop the invasion, they would have stopped it.

WHAT IF MONKEYS WITH RED HATS AND RAY GUNS FLEW OUT OF MY BUT AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?

Kinds of topics.. it suits you better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, conform, lose the imagination, question nothing and we'll all be better off, safe and sound in our imaginary bubbles.

Thank god we don't have communism around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stanford-ukded

04-27-2007, 08:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
England was never in danger of being invaded and the RAF was never in danger of being destroyed. At worst, the RAF fighters would have been forced to pull back beyond the range of the 109s, which wasn't much beyond the coast. Beyond that range, any bombers attempting to attack the bases would have suffered even more than they did when escorted, which was pretty high. IIRC, the Luftwaffe had not even replaced all of the losses from earlier campaigns so they were stretched to the limit at the beginning of the BoB.

The whole discussion is really moot anyway b/c the Kreigsmarine stated over and over that they were incapable of landing an invasion force due to the distance, the sea conditions, and the lack of proper landing craft. The barges they were planning on using were a joke. All the Royal Navy would have had to do was charge the invasion force lobbing shells throughout. Even near misses would have been disastrous for the landing craft. Add to that every single aircraft the RAF had running amok and it's pretty obvious that there was just no chance of there ever being an invasion. Even if it would have resulted in massive RN and RAF casualties to stop the invasion, they would have stopped it.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the stated Royal Navy tactic to combat the Kreigsmarine's flat bottom landing craft was to simply sail destroyers right through them - the wake would capsize the majority.

Daiichidoku

04-27-2007, 08:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
England was never in danger of being invaded and the RAF was never in danger of being destroyed. At worst, the RAF fighters would have been forced to pull back beyond the range of the 109s, which wasn't much beyond the coast. Beyond that range, any bombers attempting to attack the bases would have suffered even more than they did when escorted, which was pretty high. IIRC, the Luftwaffe had not even replaced all of the losses from earlier campaigns so they were stretched to the limit at the beginning of the BoB.

The whole discussion is really moot anyway b/c the Kreigsmarine stated over and over that they were incapable of landing an invasion force due to the distance, the sea conditions, and the lack of proper landing craft. The barges they were planning on using were a joke. All the Royal Navy would have had to do was charge the invasion force lobbing shells throughout. Even near misses would have been disastrous for the landing craft. Add to that every single aircraft the RAF had running amok and it's pretty obvious that there was just no chance of there ever being an invasion. Even if it would have resulted in massive RN and RAF casualties to stop the invasion, they would have stopped it.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

during 1940, KM/OKW were actually husbanding barges from all over europe...however, no concrete plans were made to actually use them...leading many in Germany to believe the invasion was a feint

as it turned out, they calculated they could never amass the barges needed, it would have to wait until 41 at least....not helped by the fact that many barges were sunk by RAF bobmers at their mooring in the low countries and france
soon they had to return all the remaining commandeered barges, as the economic strain from lack of shipping was a serious threat to keeping the conquered countires secure and "stable"

WB_Outlaw

04-27-2007, 08:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
during 1940, KM/OKW were actually husbanding barges from all over europe...however, no concrete plans were made to actually use them...leading many in Germany to believe the invasion was a feint
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that was the case. Hitler was not yet insane enough to believe that he could have successfully invaded England. Hitler was like the bully being stood up to by the biggest of the weak. Hitler didn't really want to fight so he hoped that a good shove and a slap or two would make England back down. It didn't and Hitler didn't have the resources to push the fight so he was the one who had to back down.

--Outlaw.

Deadmeat313

04-27-2007, 08:47 AM

I have applied my prodigious intellect to this problem, and come to the conclusion that Hitler never wanted to actually invade the UK.

Having removed the French, Hitler was gearing up for his main show - the war in the East. Britain was an irritating distraction that der Fuhrer would rather not have to deal with.

He was aware that in Britain it was largely Churchill's indomitable spirit that was keeping the public in favour of war - in the face of an influential political bloc who would prefer that the UK make peace with the Reich (Lord Halifax springs to mind). Hitler's hope was that with a) the RAF destroyed, and b) a large fleet of troop barges massed in readiness across the channel, the British public would lose faith in Churchill and vote in the appeasers. Thus the UK would sue for peace and the invasion need never happen.

It was not a bad plan. Churchill's grip on power wavered more than once during the "dark days" when Britain stood alone.

After the battle of Britan, Hitler's bluff had been comprehensively called. He ceased the plan and turned his attentions elsewhere.

T.

flyingloon

04-27-2007, 09:04 AM

hitler wanted our homegrown facists to oust churchill. the plan was then for england and germany to indulge in a time honoured tradition - team up and kick the **** outta the french and anyone else that looked at us funny.

FluffyDucks2

04-27-2007, 09:22 AM

Guys....Its BRITAIN and the BRITISH, England is a part of BRITAIN, Hitler was planning to invade BRITAIN, that means he attacked BRITAIN and Northern IRELAND, dont any of you guys do geography? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm pretty sure all the Scots, Welsh and Irish, that were attacked by the LW would be pretty pissed off that you guys are obsessed with one small part of BRITAIN. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

do not assume some sort of slight because of the interchangeable use of "England" and "Britain"

While to the British and/or English, it may seem like some sort of slight, or an unfathomable lack of geographical knowledge, it is simply fact that in other places, we do not make the clear and concise demarcation that you do

major_setback

04-27-2007, 10:00 AM

There are laws that govern this sort of thing. We are not accountable for our actions - any of us. We are merely animals acting out strategies that have been honed by the selective process over millions of years. To believe that rational thinking determines our behaviour is naiive.

I did one month of Peace and Cconflict Studies (Uni) - And learned a lot. Read about Game Theory (these apply to conflicts too, not just games or economics). Made famous by John Nash amongst others.
Game Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win-win_game

In short. If the 'you kick my foot and I'll boot you in the groin' approach works often enough it will become the prevailing strategy (evolutionary theory applies to behavior and strategies).

BTW I know I'm only half-right, and its all theory - so don't necessarily listen to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.
I did though write an essay/paper using Game Theory to explain this very train of events (acidental bombing of London, retalliation etc...).

Daiichidoku

04-27-2007, 11:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
I'm pretty sure all the Scots, Welsh and Irish, that were attacked by the LW would be pretty pissed off that you guys are obsessed with one small part of BRITAIN. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/GUMC-1501.jpg

ytareh

04-27-2007, 11:47 AM

Very early in the war didnt some politician / top brass veto the bombing of a munitions factory etc in germany by the RAF on the grounds it was private property!!!???

Maj.Kaos

04-27-2007, 12:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
I have applied my prodigious intellect to this problem, and come to the conclusion that Hitler never wanted to actually invade the UK.

Having removed the French, Hitler was gearing up for his main show - the war in the East. Britain was an irritating distraction that der Fuhrer would rather not have to deal with.

He was aware that in Britain it was largely Churchill's indomitable spirit that was keeping the public in favour of war - in the face of an influential political bloc who would prefer that the UK make peace with the Reich (Lord Halifax springs to mind). Hitler's hope was that with a) the RAF destroyed, and b) a large fleet of troop barges massed in readiness across the channel, the British public would lose faith in Churchill and vote in the appeasers. Thus the UK would sue for peace and the invasion need never happen.

It was not a bad plan. Churchill's grip on power wavered more than once during the "dark days" when Britain stood alone.

After the battle of Britan, Hitler's bluff had been comprehensively called. He ceased the plan and turned his attentions elsewhere.

Thanks for the interesting topic, Raaid. Seriously. Out of the box thinking stimulates the mind, if not the reciprocating abuse that you put up with. No te preocupas, tus ideas tienen valor (usualmente). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Quoted by FluffyDucks:
"Guys....Its BRITAIN and the BRITISH, England is a part of BRITAIN, Hitler was planning to invade BRITAIN, that means he attacked BRITAIN and Northern IRELAND, dont any of you guys do geography?

I'm pretty sure all the Scots, Welsh and Irish, that were attacked by the LW would be pretty pissed off that you guys are obsessed with one small part of BRITAIN."
________________________________________

While on this topic, let's get something else straight.....

"Americans" includes all citizens of the Western Hemisphere. Canadians are Americans (yes you are, don't deny it!), so are Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, and so on (no slight intended for those unmentioned. For a complete list of "Americans" kindly PM me, or consult an atlas).

Therefore, I respectfully submit that in the future, to clarify who is who in America, that those who are citizens of the United States, be referred to as "USers". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What?! Any better ideas? No, wait, wrong question for here!

Aaron_GT

04-27-2007, 12:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not a bad plan. Churchill's grip on power wavered more than once during the "dark days" when Britain stood alone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did so a number of times, for example in 1942 until Alamein, and again in 1944 when apparently he announced his intention to travel to the Normandy beaches to observe the landings on D-Day itself, which led to orders being drawn up for him to be apprehended and be removed from office should he attempt to do so (information released under the 50 year rule a while back). Then there was the election in 1945, of course.

England = part of Great Britain. Arguably the bit with the best beer, the worst spirits and the oddest pies.

Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales.

The United Kingdom = England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland, sometimes known as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Cheers,

RD.

PS - where is Kurfles to explain that we actually lost and Hitler won?

MB_Avro_UK

04-27-2007, 01:03 PM

Hi all,

Getting back on topic.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Is Raaaaid's presumption that the RAF bombed London to precipitate the bombing of Germany..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif....and therefore divert Luftwaffe attacks from RAF airfields in favour of bombing London http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

It's time for me to take my pet Elephant for a walk in the park whilst I give this proposition some deep and serious thought...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

tigertalon

04-27-2007, 01:04 PM

Cheating? Nah, even if they did it (brits bombed german cities first), it was not cheating. There is no such thing as cheating in war. As we have seen in every major conflict.

RocketDog

04-27-2007, 01:06 PM

Given the accuracy of RAF bombing at the beginning of the war it is quite likely they were aiming for Berlin but accidentally bombed London instead.

And then there are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, just to add some complexity.

John_Pimlott

04-27-2007, 01:22 PM

Its all too confusing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Even President Blairs doesn't know all of the continents in the united states of great englands!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

hop2002

04-27-2007, 01:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If my memory serves, a London suburb was bombed once by accident despite the Luftwaffe's orders not to hit civilian targets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pop history will tell you a single plane bombed London by accident, the British retaliated, and the whole fate of the second world war turned on a single incident.

The facts are rather different.

The first casualties of German bombing in London were on the 15th August, when aircraft trying to bomb Croydon airfield hit a perfume factory, killing 60 civilians. That was in daylight.

The next bombs to hit London were on the night of the 18/19th August, when bombs hit Croydon, Wimbledon and the Maldens.

Also on the 19th, Goering ordered Sperle, head of Luftflotte 3, to prepare and carry out large night attacks on Liverpool and Glasgow. More than 100 bombers were to be used on each raid.

On the 22/23rd August, the bombs fell on London again, specifically Slough, Richmond Park and Dulwich.

On the 24/25th, bombs hit London again, including the boroughs of Islington, Tottenham, Finsbury, Millwall, Stepney, Leyton, East Ham, Coulsdon and Bethnal Green.

It wasn't until the next night that the RAF went to bomb Berlin, and the Luftwaffe bombed London again at the same time, hitting Banstead, Croydon, Lewisham, Uxbridge, Harrow and Hayes.

Over 1,070 British civilians were killed in German bombing in August, up from 250+ in July.

And all Hitler did was allow the Luftwaffe to bomb London. It's something Kesselring had been calling for since the start of the BoB, and the plan for the BoB called for attacks on ports and food stores towards the end of the battle. London was the largest port in Europe.

From the war diary of the Wehrmacht high command:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Chief of Staff, Generalleutnant Speidel, made the following comment on the course operations had taken so far:

The outstanding feature of the initial phase was the destruction of the enemy fighter force the strength and striking power of which was more and more reduced. When the air fleet intended to go over to a large scale attack on London, the permission for such action could not at first be obtained but was given only after repeated urgent requests. Then, however, weather conditions remained good for only one more day so that the attack could not be carried out in the planned form. This respite offered the British a chance to draw personnel and materiel from all schools and fighter aircraft not yet painted from the industry for operational employment. Consequently, the enemy fighter defences were gradually reinforced again in the course of the following days. During this effort, the British recklessly committed fighter squadrons with poorly trained crews against the German bomber units. During these operations the enemy fighter aircraft repeatedly rammed the German bomber aircraft as an ultimate method of combat. The German fighter aircraft however, were mostly attacked only by well trained British fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see, the Luftwaffe was desperate to attack London, they weren't reluctantly forced into it by Hitler.

(Other claims by Speidel, like the RAF "rebuilding" it's strength, using planes straight from the factory without paint, ramming bombers etc show just how poor a grasp the Luftwaffe had on the strenght of the RAF)

Hitler had issued very vague peace feelers, basically wanting to hold on to what he had already taken without having to fight the British. But he certainly didn't seek to stop bombing of civilians, particularly as Luftflotte 3 was in the process of transferring its fighters to Luftflotte 2, and using its bombers primarily at night.

Hitler eventually allowed the Luftwaffe to switch their attack to London, it's something the Luftwaffe had wanted to do for some time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been argued by some leading historians (&lt;- note that brilliant leading "Weasel Words" sentence), that if the Luftwaffe had maintained their original focus they would have crippled the RAF in short order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly.

On the 17th July, the first date the RAF web site gives numbers of serviceable aircraft for, the RAF had 237 Spitfires and 331 Hurricanes serviceable.

By the 12th August, the day before the Luftwaffe launched their all out attack, the numbers had risen to 248 Spitfires and 363 Hurricanes.

On the morning of the 7th September, the day the Luftwaffe switched to bombing London, they had 223 Spitfires and 398 Hurricanes serviceable.

So after all the fury of August and the 1st week of September, the RAF actually had more serviceable fighters. The Luftwaffe, of course, had less.

In terms of pilots, the RAF had 1,396 operational fighter pilots on the 12th August. After the month's fighting, on the 6th September they had 1,381. In a month the Luftwaffe had reduced FC's pilot strength by 1%.

As Bungay says in The Most Dangerous Enemy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are many who believe that Fighter Command was on its knees after the attacks on the airfields. It was a strange way of kneeling. Given Evill's cal¬culations, and taking the worst scenario of no increase in output from the training units, if the Luftwaffe had continued its attacks on the airfields and continued to destroy aircraft in the air at the most favourable rate it ever achieved, there would still have been about 725 Hurricanes and Spitfires ready to take to the air in the third week of September. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He goes on:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Knowing that their enemy was preparing to 'go down hill' would have been cold comfort to the Luftwaffe. They assumed the enemy had been doing that for some time. In fact they believed he ought to be at his last gasp. General Stapf had reported to Haider on 30 August that the British had lost 800 Hurricanes and Spitfires since 8 August out of a front-line strength of 915. Given Schmid's estimate of their production capacity of 200-300 a month, the British could therefore only have 3-400 left at the outside. After another week of pounding in September, they must indeed be down to their last 200 machines.
In fact, on the evening of 6 September, Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots available to it, about 950 of whom flew Spitfires or Hurricanes. It needed 1,588 pilots to be at full establishment, which is of course what Dowding wanted, so from his point of view he was 200 short.20 From the Luftwaffe's point of view, he had almost 200 more pilots and 150 more planes than he had had at the beginning of July when they set out to destroy him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik

04-27-2007, 01:43 PM

It's not like the LW was reluctant to bomb civilians, they did it back in the Spanish Civil War.

Quoted by FluffyDucks:
"Guys....Its BRITAIN and the BRITISH, England is a part of BRITAIN, Hitler was planning to invade BRITAIN, that means he attacked BRITAIN and Northern IRELAND, dont any of you guys do geography?

I'm pretty sure all the Scots, Welsh and Irish, that were attacked by the LW would be pretty pissed off that you guys are obsessed with one small part of BRITAIN."
________________________________________

While on this topic, let's get something else straight.....

"Americans" includes all citizens of the Western Hemisphere. Canadians are Americans (yes you are, don't deny it!), so are Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, and so on (no slight intended for those unmentioned. For a complete list of "Americans" kindly PM me, or consult an atlas).

Therefore, I respectfully submit that in the future, to clarify who is who in America, that those who are citizens of the United States, be referred to as "USers". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Most, non-English brits don't really take the confusion as a slight, we know it is mainly just down to ignorance. That is the reason why it tends to be brought up, to at least try to get rid of that ignorance. The funny thing is, it is not as though people tend to be unaware of the existence of Scotland or Ireland but for some reason that doesn't seem to register with their conception of Britain and the Commonwealth. This is particularly peculiar considering that Scots were disproportionately represented as members of the military and the administration in the colonies.

Dance

04-27-2007, 02:45 PM

^^^ and everyone forgets Wales :P

Mind you butty, I live here and quite often forget it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GIAP.Shura

04-27-2007, 03:22 PM

Well, I didn't mention Wales because, unfortunately, a lot of people are ignorant of even the existence of Wales. That reminds me of a time when I went into a pub in Wales once wearing a kilt and one of the locals asked me if I was English. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Dance

04-27-2007, 03:55 PM

Not many 'local' Welsh would mistake where a kilt came from. Probably a second homer or they were taking the p*ss. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WarWolfe_1

04-27-2007, 04:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
hell if i was in war vs hitler and he was winning id cheat to beat him

but the point isnt weather it was right or not but if it actually was intended to trick hitler </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as cheating in war.....its only winners and losers.

VW-IceFire

04-27-2007, 05:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
If you are to believe Stephen Bungay, the RAF could have indeed carried on taking the pounding they were for a significant period of time. Why? Because the Germans were pounding the wrong airfields most of the time.

When airfields were out of action (with the exception of Manston and other coastal fields) they were generally taken out by 'lucky' hits to communication and power lines. Even then, none were out of action for more than two days.
Even if you don't agree with what is being said, The Most Dangerous Enemy by Stephen Bungay is a fantastic read. In fact, it's a must read.

Raid - I don't know exactly how good your English is, but I strongly suggest you try to get your hands on a copy of the book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll second that...I did a whole lot of research in my undergrad on the Battle of Britain. Many of the RAF airbases that were attacked were Bomber Command bases or even civilian or light military bases and so forth. So a fair number of RAF bombers (many older designs) and liaison aircraft were lost, meanwhile fighter command sector HQ's were often left unscathed. Not to say that fighter command bases weren't attacked but rather that Luftwaffe intelligence on which targets to prioritize was stunningly bad and that they spread their attacks out unnecessarily.

I'll also point out that pretty much all of the coastal radar stations taken out of action during the first day of the battle were repaired, many of them within hours of the attack, so the radar units were never out of commission for very long.

So my feeling is that no, there was no order to drop bombs on London by the RAF. The Luftwaffe did that. Its fairly well documented by both sides. Its a fair point to make that Hitler was against bombing London but Goering and others weren't quite so romantic about the city. It certainly would have come out later if the RAF had just like the intelligence about the bombing and subsequent destruction of Coventry was withheld to preserve the secret that German codes had been broken.

leitmotiv

04-27-2007, 05:33 PM

The whole premise of this discussion is so ridiculous I can't believe it! Who in the history of human conflict has ever applied fairly modern juvenile gaming standards to warfare?

horseback

04-27-2007, 06:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
This is particularly peculiar considering that Scots were disproportionately represented as members of the military and the administration in the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...not to mention as engineers in Star Fleet.

I find this recent outbreak of nationalism on the part of the Welsh and Scots mildly amusing-they weren't nearly so prickly about it back in the 1960s, when I lived in East Anglia.

By the way, I prefer "Yankee Air Pirate."

cheers

horseback

R_Target

04-27-2007, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Who in the history of human conflict has ever applied fairly modern juvenile gaming standards to warfare? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh heh. Never in the field of forum conflict was so much said by so many that meant so little. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Dance

04-27-2007, 06:36 PM

Nationalism has nothing to do with it, and being the wrong side of forty myself I see nothing recent in it anyway. If I'd lived in East Anglia in the 60's I would have been suprised to see the outside world at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv

04-27-2007, 07:49 PM

This all harks back to the long and illustrious history of British dirty tricks practiced by their spies/agents/secret service/government b-----ds from Tudor times to recent times, including the alleged but never-quite-proven blowing up of American dockyards by British agents acting under the nefarious "Sydney Reilley" to look like they had been sabotaged by German agents before the American entry into WWI, the alleged sending of the LUSITANIA to her doom at the known location of a German submarine, the well-known and verified British anti-German spying activities which got up the hackles of the U.S. F.B.I. prior to WWII, and countless other examples of British skulduggery, underhandedness, bad sportsmanship, and knee capping. God love the b-----ds!

John_Wayne_

04-27-2007, 07:58 PM

I ain't never seen the Brits resort to using giant robots. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, if you ask me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Choctaw111

04-27-2007, 08:51 PM

I have not read any of the posts in this thread...yet, BUT, how exactly to do CHEAT at war. ALL is fair in war... or so I thought. If this is not the case I believe I have a lot of people I need to apologize to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
This is particularly peculiar considering that Scots were disproportionately represented as members of the military and the administration in the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...not to mention as engineers in Star Fleet.

I find this recent outbreak of nationalism on the part of the Welsh and Scots mildly amusing-they weren't nearly so prickly about it back in the 1960s, when I lived in East Anglia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Taking India as an example, of 249 writers appointed by the directors of the East India Company, 119 were Scots. Of the 116 candidates recruited in 1782 for the officer corps of the Bengal division, 56 were Scots. Of the 371 "free merchants" working for the company 211 were Scots and of 254 assistant surgeon recruits 132 were Scots. This was all at a time when Scots comprised just under a tenth of the British population.

If anything, Scots are underepresented in Star Trek. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Then again, the Captain was called Kirk...maybe he was just miscast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't think the strong sense of identity or desire for self determination is particularly recent either. In the 1979 referendum on a devolved parliament for Scotland 51.6% voted for compared to 48.4% who voted against. However, there was a clause which required that 40% of the electorate vote yes and the majority yes vote only constituted 33% so the devolved government didn't happen. I certainly think that there is less nationalism and bitterness towards the English now than there was in the Thatcher years which followed.

Ok, how about a compromise: "Yankee Pig Pirate" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger

04-28-2007, 05:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This all harks back to the long and illustrious history of British dirty tricks practiced by their spies/agents/secret service/government b-----ds from Tudor times to recent times, including the alleged but never-quite-proven blowing up of American dockyards by British agents acting under the nefarious "Sydney Reilley" to look like they had been sabotaged by German agents before the American entry into WWI, the alleged sending of the LUSITANIA to her doom at the known location of a German submarine, the well-known and verified British anti-German spying activities which got up the hackles of the U.S. F.B.I. prior to WWII, and countless other examples of British skulduggery, underhandedness, bad sportsmanship, and knee capping. God love the b-----ds! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And let's not forget, they drink their iced tea hot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WB_Outlaw

04-28-2007, 10:49 AM

Engalnd, Britain, Great Britain, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, United Kingdom, etc., it doesn't matter what you call 'em as they are all the same bunch of soccer and rugby playin' w@nk3rs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--Outlaw.

P.S.
Maybe grouping the others in with the Welsh is a bit extreme but I'm an engineer, not a physicist.

Aaron_GT

04-28-2007, 11:33 AM

Goodness, given the tensions when these countries play each other at rugby I think it does matter!

DmdSeeker

04-28-2007, 12:01 PM

As this thread has now gone to four pages and no one has tackled THE WHOLE of RAAID's opening line, I take it as settled that you furriners and colonials now finaly accept that Britain did indeed win the war.

We saved your asses; and don't you coddam yanquis forget it!

ploughman

04-28-2007, 12:10 PM

Yar, bow down before us and fankus.

leitmotiv

04-28-2007, 12:23 PM

Yerrrr cheatin' hearrrrt

John_Pimlott

04-28-2007, 12:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Engalnd, Britain, Great Britain, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, United Kingdom, etc., it doesn't matter what you call 'em as they are all the same bunch of soccer and rugby playin' w@nk3rs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--Outlaw.

P.S.
Maybe grouping the others in with the Welsh is a bit extreme but I'm an engineer, not a physicist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not very nice to call anyone w@nkers!!!
Well I suppose somebody had to bring it down to childish name calling.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Rammathorn_

04-28-2007, 09:59 PM

There's no such thing as cheating in the context of war. There are varying levels of commitment and "cheating" is an excuse for the less committed party.

Dance

04-29-2007, 05:33 AM

Outlaw, I'm a sheep shagger not a w@nker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hanglands

04-29-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote : "suddenlly one night everything changed, a german plane by mistake bombed an english village, the english then bombed german cities which made nazis change targets from military to the cities giving time the raf to recover"

After the bombing of London on the 10th of May 1941, Arthur Harris made THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqgQCGTL9Bk) public address, it warned of the reprisals that would be taken against Nazi Germany. Given it was a stark warning made in public, outlining his methods and thinking, I dont think that the RAF, Bomber Command, Harris, or the English in general can be accused of cheating.

Then again, the Captain was called Kirk...maybe he was just miscast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being that the Shatner is Jewish, naming him Captain Church would be a tad odd

In fact, DeForrest Kelly was originally offered the role of Cap'n <STRIKE>Jerk</STRIKE> Kirk. he was a regular on many TV Westerns at the time and was a well known face. He basically was of the opinion that he wouldn't risk his steady career as a TV actor in popular shows like westerns by being the star of a flop Sci-Fi series that was, to be honest, very weird

he was almost right

Nimits

04-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Well, if the Germans believed the Brits were cheating, maybe the should have quit the war and staid home until they could find somebody more honest to conquer . . .

Sheep shagger, w@nk3r, once again, as a good for nothin' colonial, they're all the same to me!

--Outlaw.

P.S.
Thanks for showing that SOMEONE out there has a sense of humor!

Dance

04-29-2007, 04:41 PM

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWSensei

04-29-2007, 04:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The whole premise of this discussion is so ridiculous I can't believe it! Who in the history of human conflict has ever applied fairly modern juvenile gaming standards to warfare? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I laugh every time I read the meme of "we're much better pilots than our WW2 counterparts" or "most of us would have been aces" statements.

Blutarski2004

04-29-2007, 06:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The whole premise of this discussion is so ridiculous I can't believe it! Who in the history of human conflict has ever applied fairly modern juvenile gaming standards to warfare? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I laugh every time I read the meme of "we're much better pilots than our WW2 counterparts" or "most of us would have been aces" statements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Just a laugh? I think statements like that deserve convulsions at the very least.

leitmotiv

04-29-2007, 10:07 PM

I certainly hope so, otherwise they were a bunch of (unseemly anatomical allusion beginning in g much hated by feminists).

leitmotiv

04-29-2007, 10:55 PM

To address raaaid's perfectly legit question---of course Winston knew the residential hit was the foul-up of a single confused bomber pilot---otherwise area bombing would have been the mission of all the German bombers that night. He seized upon the event as a pretext for an attack on Berlin betting that Hitler would be enraged by the dropping of the "Queensbury Rules" both sides had been following thus far, and H would retaliate on London thus relieving the pressure on the RAF Sector Stations which were just about smashed south of London. The bet paid off---and the Londoners caught a packet to save the country. So, Winston did cheat. He pretended the Germans made a vicious attack on London when they hadn't. He nicked Berlin in retaliation for nothing.

With Britain's back to the wall, if he hadn't done this, he would have been an idiot, a traitor, a fool, a nebbish, a twit, and very much like some people in politics today in some places.

ImpStarDuece

04-30-2007, 03:24 AM

So why didn't he order the bombing on the 16th, after the FIRST attacks on London?

hop2002

04-30-2007, 03:46 AM

From The Battle by prof. Richard Overy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The raids on Berlin were in reality retaliation for the
persistent bombing of British conurbations and the high level of British civilian casualties that resulted. In July 258 civilians had been killed, in August 1,075; the figures included 136 children and 392 women. During the last half of August, as German bombers moved progressively further inland, bombs began to fall on the outskirts of London. On the night of 18/19 August bombs fell on Croydon, Wimbledon and the Maidens. On the night of 22/23 August the first bombs fell on central London in attacks described by observers as 'extensive' and for which no warning was given; on the night of 24/25 August bombs fell in Slough, Richmond Park and Dulwich. On the night the RAF first raided Berlin, bombs fell on Banstead, Croydon, Lewisham, Uxbridge, Harrow and Hayes. On the night of the next raid on Berlin, on 28/29 August, German aircraft bombed the following London areas: Finchley, St Pancras, Wembley, Wood Green, Southgate, Crayford, Old Kent Road, Mill Hill, Ilford, Hendon, Chigwell. London was under 'red' warning for seven hours and five minutes. The bombing of London began almost two weeks before Hitler's speech on 4 September, and well before the first raid on Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

leitmotiv

04-30-2007, 08:22 AM

Fascinating. Excellent work by Overy, as usual. Rubbishes the old formula completely. Ordering the book.

Mess up the mess they call a town --
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week for half-a-crown
For twenty years,

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears,

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead

And talk of sports and makes of cars
In various bogus Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.

-- John Betjeman

leitmotiv

04-30-2007, 10:50 AM

I know a family from Slough, ha!

In the U.S., "slough" used to be a euphemism for hitting somebody really hard---"I'm going to slough you!"

Daiichidoku

04-30-2007, 10:57 AM

i can never get over the fact that during the blitz, the germans hoped to affect cilvilian morale....of course, it had the opposite effect (for most people)

then later, when britain bombs german civilians, they hope it will affect their morale...of course, again, for the most part, it does the opposite

are they all insane and stupid, or for some reason beyond me, knowingly lie and perpetuate the myth of "wrecking morale" to justify a criminal program of bombing non-combatants?

(this applies more so for britain, who, being largely on the recieving end first, and knowing ITS victims were strengthened, should have realized THIER city bombing would only strengthen germans civ's resolve?)

Agamemnon22

04-30-2007, 12:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
i can never get over the fact that during the blitz, the germans hoped to affect cilvilian morale....of course, it had the opposite effect (for most people)

then later, when britain bombs german civilians, they hope it will affect their morale...of course, again, for the most part, it does the opposite

are they all insane and stupid, or for some reason beyond me, knowingly lie and perpetuate the myth of "wrecking morale" to justify a criminal program of bombing non-combatants?

(this applies more so for britain, who, being largely on the recieving end first, and knowing ITS victims were strengthened, should have realized THIER city bombing would only strengthen germans civ's resolve?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brits actually justified it through a slight variation: bombing civillians out of their homes would preclude them from going to work, slowing down manufacturing and the economy as a whole, rather than merely hope to break their spirits and willing support for the government. Of course, as you say, civillian bombing was equally futile in either objective and on both sides of the war.

horseback

04-30-2007, 12:34 PM

Of course, for the British, bombing German civilians also had a substantial revenge factor-and I'm sure that it did good things for the morale of Polish, Belgian, Dutch, Russian and French civilians as well.

Any time this subject comes up, one must point out that bombing cities (and therefore any civilians within them) was very much a part of pre-war doctrine; nobody thought of it as an atrocity until it was their cities being bombed.

On the other hand, the Germans did it first, and never seemed to be dissuaded from the practice on moral grounds, regardless of how much their propagandists bleated about being on the receiving end.

cheers

horseback

RocketDog

04-30-2007, 12:52 PM

It's clear that the morale of German civilians was affected by the incessant bombing - but their government didn't care how miserable their lives became.

RD.

Aaron_GT

04-30-2007, 01:34 PM

Cheating during war just isn't cricket.

Given England's recent cricket performance, perhaps we should start cheating at cricket too to stand a chance of winning.

OD_79

04-30-2007, 01:36 PM

We didn't cheat we just had a very good poker face!

slipBall

04-30-2007, 01:55 PM

The English are many things...but they are not cheats...that would not be proper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002

04-30-2007, 02:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Excellent work by Overy, as usual. Rubbishes the old formula completely. Ordering the book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a pretty short book, so don't pay too much for it.

Just looking at the RAF Battle of Britain site shows how false the claim that there was a single mistaken attack on London is. As early as 16th August:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At 1720 hours, HE and Incendiary Bombs were dropped at Wimbledon, Merton, Mitcham, Esher, Malden and Coombe, the principal damage being caused in the Wimbledon and Merton areas. An electric transformer was burnt out at Shannon Corner, temporarily cutting off supply to two factories. At Wimbledon a factory and sub-station were demolished and casualties are reported to be 18 dead and 57 injured. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that those 18 dead compare to 10 killed in the first 2 RAF raids on Berlin, which are supposed to have caused the Luftwaffe to "begin" bombing London.